Epic Disney on GameInformer

[toblix]

I had nightmares for ages from when the guy's eyes pop out. That, and the robot-chick scene in Superman 3.

[SignorSuperdouche]

I had nightmares for ages from when the guy's eyes pop out.

Oh man, me too. When I was a nipper I used to have Who Framed Roger Rabbit on VHS and I went through a phase of watching it on a pretty much daily basis, but I always had to stop just before that part because it scared the shit out of me.

[Ben X]

I love RR and AGM super-hard, but they're hardly the biggest change you'd see in a non-Disney universe!

(And sorry, but I really enjoyed New Groove, too.)

[elmuerte]

Oh...

Hah, well I like Who Framed Roger Rabbit?, but oh well...

Me too, I also like Tron.

[vimes]

Roger Rabbit is an awesome movie, don't let anybody tell you otherwise.

[elmuerte]

I happy they canceled they sequel

[lobotomy42]

The movie is based on the book Who Censored Roger Rabbit?

YOU HAVE JUST TURNED MY WORLD UPSIDE-DOWN

[Jake]

That's mainly because Disney bought the movie rights to the book. You wouldn't call "Dead Poets Society" or "The Royal Tenenbaums" a Dinsey movie, right?

Amblin is listed as the main production company for Roger Rabbit.

Also there's no way Disney would put all of their characters in that film if they didn't produce it. The combination of Disney backing the film plus Spielberg producing (he had a good relationship with Warner Bros -- Tiny Toons, Animaniacs, etc) is the only reason it exists as it does. You'd never get a scene of actual Mickey Mouse and actual Bugs Bunny skydiving and giving a guy a spare tire instead of a parachute in anything else.

Even though the animation was directed by someone non-standard at Disney, the actual animation work was done in-house at Disney Feature Animation, wasn't it?

And yeah, anything produced through Touchstone is in part a Disney movie. It's not a Disney branded movie, but that's branding. The Walt Disney Company gets some profits from it, and often films made by people who have "a relationship with Disney" come out under that label.

I don't think it's fair to tell oneself that something wasn't Disney just because one happens to not like Disney but also like a particular piece of work they financed.

[vimes]

Even though the animation was directed by someone non-standard at Disney

I always thought the director of animation on Roger Rabbit was Ward Kimball, but for the life of me, I can't find a source...

[syntheticgerbil]

Also there's no way Disney would put all of their characters in that film if they didn't produce it. The combination of Disney backing the film plus Spielberg producing (he had a good relationship with Warner Bros -- Tiny Toons, Animaniacs, etc) is the only reason it exists as it does. You'd never get a scene of actual Mickey Mouse and actual Bugs Bunny skydiving and giving a guy a spare tire instead of a parachute in anything else.

That's funny, it was actually stipulated that Bugs Bunny would not get more screen time than Mickey Mouse.

Even though the animation was directed by someone non-standard at Disney, the actual animation work was done in-house at Disney Feature Animation, wasn't it?

Not so, it was animated somewhere in Elstree Studios in England, possibly at the studio Richard Williams and crew did all of their commercials, shorts, and Thief and the Cobbler work (in their free time) during the 70s and 80s.

Wikipedia says the animation was done there because of Richard Williams' disdain for the Disney studio, but it's cited from a book I don't have and have never read. Other sources say Disney studios was busy with other work. I would guess just going by the documentaries I've seen on Richard Williams and his ongoing dislike towards the Disney way, it's probably a bit more of the former.

And yeah, anything produced through Touchstone is in part a Disney movie. It's not a Disney branded movie, but that's branding. The Walt Disney Company gets some profits from it, and often films made by people who have "a relationship with Disney" come out under that label.

I don't think it's fair to tell oneself that something wasn't Disney just because one happens to not like Disney but also like a particular piece of work they financed.

That's selling it a bit short. Roger Rabbit is of course Disney property and they merchandised the fuck out of it just like they do with anything, but like you said in your first paragraph, it's "in part a Disney movie." There's some wrenches in the movie's history and the animators who worked on it that prevent it from becoming a full on Disney brand even though it had the involvement from the big business new animation czars Katzenberg, Spielberg, and Zemeckis.

Besides the live action stuff, which was well done, a lot of people in animation like the movie simply because of the Richard Williams factor, who's a guy who has never given up his integrity in light of failure, which is way more than anyone can say what has become of Zemeckis. While some people think Richard Williams is not that great because his stuff tends to be overly complicated or too grotesque, there's a lot to learn from the guy I think and his animated works besides Roger Rabbit are definitely nothing to scoff at. I would guess the guy was hired because he was really fucking good at being an animator and maybe the producers felt they needed someone with sensibilities that weren't exactly following the regular Californian animation principles. Richard Williams accepted under the impression that when finished, his Cobbler movie would be distributed by Disney and Spielburg, which they completely blew.

The way Roger Rabbit movie was produced and presented upon release are very well separated from The Little Mermaid, and not just because it was based on a book, which I don't think makes much of a difference. I'm not saying Roger Rabbit is not a Disney movie, or that it's only okay to like because it's not exactly Disney (it is very difficult to not find something to like that has been in bed with Disney money, since their tendrils stretch very far), but there are valid reasons and animation politics on why Roger Rabbit is held apart or not thought of as standard singing-and-dancing-believe-in-yourself Disney fare and why Roger Rabbit the character has not really been seen too much since his merchandising wave died out by the early 90s.

Edited October 13, 2009 by syntheticgerbil

[Ben X]

the Richard Williams factor, who's a guy who has never given up his integrity in light of failure, which is way more than anyone can say what has become of Zemeckis.

I don't want to go too far off-topic, but I'm not sure what you mean here. I don't think Zemeckis has seen any real failure or lost his integrity. Sure, his movies suck now, but he's still making the films he wants to make and he hasn't sold out; he hasn't started directing adverts or Twilight movies or anything.

[syntheticgerbil]

Nah I don't think he sold out, I think he just really sucks now and should stay out of the animation business. I get the feeling he's getting kind of senile and has a lot of money to burn so he keeps funding/directing those hideous motion capture movies with the famous actors running around and doing interview after interview about how revolutionary it is. Your mileage may vary.

[Murdoc]

http://www.gametrailers.com/video/debut-slideshow-epic-mickey/58279

I'll just refer to this as Epic Fail now, what I saw a long time ago was more like de-blob and was pretty cool, I guess they decided to remake everything to look pretty aweful.

Aside from the low poly, no-shader and very unrendered look, the individual assets don't really come together very well to make an appealing scene.

Maybe this is the crapy wii port and there will be an amazing 360 version?

[toblix]

Well, first of all, it's not the first time things look like ass in screen shots, but look super awesome in motion, when you play it, and it has motion and sound. For example, almost all games are like that.

Second, it doesn't look that bad, does it?

[LOPcagney]

Yes.

There are plenty of games that look as good in screen shots as in action: I feel like there must be some that even look better. It's not that this looks bad, necessarily. It's that this isn't this.

[syntheticgerbil]

The screenshots sort of look like Earthworm Jim 3D, especially the backgrounds and terrain. Probably not a good thing...

But I'm guessing that it will look a lot better in motion as it usually happens with 3D games.

[DanJW]

Yup, the problem there is not the graphical fidelity but the complete change in artistic direction - from "naturalistic post-apocalyptic modern landscapes with huge disney-themes ruins", to "gloomy cartoon abstracts, some pseudo gothic and scifi elements". The screens look like the most boring levels in Kingdom Hearts games.

There goes my interest in this.

[Murdoc]

There goes my interest in this.

Yeah same here; ok it's not that those screens are aweful (though I will stills say the elements look random and don't fit together in a cohesive pleasent scene)

Theres some good things too, the characters look rad, and they stuck with old timey mickey which is pretty awesome, but I'm just a tad disapointed, they had some killer concept art and the thought of an ink dripping mickey(the cover) walking around a torn disney universe is a pretty sweet idea.

[Fuzzy Lobster]

The screens look like the most boring levels in Kingdom Hearts games.

That's exactly what I thought when I finally saw screen shots and not just the more conceptual stuff.

Personally, I had never really had an enormous interest in the game in the first place, but it really looks ... Well, yeah, it looks like Kingdom Hearts, which I've also never really had an enormous interest in.

Ehh... It might be really fun to play, even if it's a bit boring to look at, at least as far as my personal taste goes. (?) Kids/Kingdom Hearts fans will probably love it?

*insert positivity*

[MrHoatzin]

Good lord, wtf is this?

I hope we're being set up for some sort of awesome bait and switch and we all laugh at how silly were were to fall for it and are happy for ever.

[elmuerte]

ugh... what a shame...

[Nappi]

That's not epic at all..

[syntheticgerbil]

Someone posted these on another forum to be a jerk in terms of earlier 3D platform game art direction. I think I will copy that person:

(God, I love Rayman 2.)

[MrHoatzin]

Someone posted these on another forum to be a jerk in terms of earlier 3D platform game art direction. I think I will copy that person:

[snip]

(God, I love Rayman 2.)

Aaaaaand that was one and a half console hardware generations ago.

[Thrik]

There's actually not a single thing I find appealing about those Epic Mickey screenshots. Ultra fail.